Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/1990 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall July 11, 1990 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Jeff Miller, Emily Schue, Rob Bennett, Debra Ehrman (after 12:20 p.m.), Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Shawn Boles (until 1:00 p.m.), Bobby Green. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer. The adjourned meeting of July 9, 1990, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. 1. ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER A. Schaeffer Building Purchase Mr. Green announced that he was in attendance at the Lane Council of Govern- ments (L-COG) meeting at which time the Board of Directors authorized the e Executive Director to enter into funding negotiations on behalf of L-COG for the purchase of the Schaeffer Building. Additional information will be forthcoming. B. Goodwi 11 Games Mr. Green announced that he will be representing the City of Eugene at the July 16 ceremony for the Goodwill Games. US Bank is the sponsor of this event. C. Looking Glass Board of Directors Mr. Green indicated that he has been elected to serve on the Looking Glass Board of Directors. He will keep the council informed on the status of this appointment. D. Fungicide Spraying Mr. Green informed the council that he has received several telephone calls from citizens in his ward who are concerned with the recent occurrence of a helicopter spraying fungicide in the Terry Street area. He asked staff to investigate this issue. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 1 -- e E. Retail Task Force (RTF) Report Mr. Boles announced that the RTF will be holding a public forum soon to gather input on its recently released recommendations for downtown redesign. At Mr. Boles request, Councilors Bascom and Rutan and Mayor Miller agreed to serve on the council committee responsible for appointing members to the Design Advisory Committee for the downtown redesign process. F. American Lung Association In conjunction with the American Lung Association's recent request at the July 9 council public forum regarding controlling the sale of tobacco to minors, Ms. Bascom requested a report from staff on what ordinances the council might institute to address this. The council offered its general support for this request. G. Amtrak from Eugene to Vancouver BC Ms. Bascom suggested that the council ask the Intergovernmental Relations Committee to investigate and support efforts to get an Amtrak train routed from Eugene through Seattle to Vancouver BC, without a layover in Portland. The council offered its support for this request. e H. Lane County Housing Policy Board Mr. Bennett announced that the County recently formed a Housing Policy Board which will be composed of one representative from each of Eugene and Spring- field's City Councils, one representative from the Lane County Commission, and two at-large citizens. He voiced his support for the County's decision to funnel its housing dollars through this board. At the council's request, Ms. Bascom agreed to serve as the council representative on this board. I. Trip to Irkutsk Mayor Miller announced that he recently held a press conference on his trip to Eugene's sister city, Irkutsk. He noted that the Irkutsk City Council has expressed its appreciation for Eugene's Sister City program and said that in the future, the City may want to consider the addition of an economic compo- nent to the program. Mayor Miller indicated that he would send a memo to individual councilors about this possibility in the future. J. Work Planning Session Darcy Marentette reminded the council that it is scheduled to hold its work planning session on July 16. She provided the council with an overview of the list of topics to be discussed at this meeting and asked that councilors contact her if they have additional suggestions for potential topics for discussion. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 2 e SKATEBOARD PROJECT SITE SELECTION AND COST ESTIMATES II. Ed Smith, PARCS Department, reported on this topic. He said that in conjunc- tion with the Skateboard Task Force's report which was presented to the council at its June 11 meeting, council requested staff to return with a recommendation on a possible location and budget information for a mini skateboard course. In response to that request, Mr. Smith said that staff recommends a site located at Amazon Park within the old alignment of 29th Avenue between Amazon Creek and Hilyard Street. Mr. Smith said that staff has estimated that cost for this facility would be between $6,000 and $10,000, depending on the amount of labor and materials that are donated. It is anticipated that savings from current capital project allocations will be used to fund this project; staff will need to evaluate all projects before a positive commitment can be made. There are currently no specific allocations for this project for FY91. Mr. Smith indicated that in the event that the entire financing package does not ma- terialize, staff recommends that the remainder of funds be taken from the Contingency Fund. Mr. Smith said that another possible mini skateboard course location, the location which received the second-highest score based on evaluative crite- ria, is Westmoreland Park. e Noting that the Skateboard Task Team report recommended that project funding come initially from Contingency Funds, Mr. Green asked whether it would not be wise to use Contingency Funds for the first project and save the money earned from capital project savings for the construction of a second mini skateboard facility. Mr. Bennett disagreed with Mr. Green on the best source of funding for this project, saying that if a second facility were determined feasible, money would more likely be obtained from Contingency Funds than from capital project savings. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the council proceed to fund the mini skateboard facility to be located at Amazon Park based on the staff recommendations of using donated labor and materials with the balance of funding coming from current capital project allocations. The motion carried unanimously, 5:0. III. UPDATE FROM METRO PARTNERSHIP John Lively, Metro Partnership representative, reported on the status of the relationship between the Eugene and the Metro Partnership. He distributed e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 3 - copies of a typical request for information received from interested busi- nesses by the Metro Partnership and provided information on how the Metro Partnership might respond to such a request. Regarding the Metro Partnership's average caseload, Mr. Lively said that the Metro Partnership responds on average to 200 or more interested business prospects per year. Of these 200 prospective cases, approximately 25 to 30 applications develop into active cases. The Metro Partnership has two staff members responsible for working on these cases. Responding to comment from Mr. Miller, Mr. Lively acknowledged that the business of attracting industry is a very competitive one with many factors affecting the final decision of where to locate. He said that the Metro Partnership serves as the facilitator for this decision making process. Mr. Lively noted that most companies that decide to invest in Eugene have 50 employees or fewer and are often in industries such as wood products, elec- tronics, or software development. Mr. Bennett emphasized the importance of having a competitive market of industrial-zoned lands. Responding to a question from Mr. Bennett about the status of Eugene's industrial lands, Mr. Lively said that many businesses have indicated that Eugene has a shortage of good-quality lands which are available for industrial uses. Specifically, many businesses find the condi- tion of Eugene's industrial-zoned lands unattractive because of the character of surrounding lands. e Mr. Gleason noted that changing the quality of Eugene's industrial-zoned lands will have a tremendous impact on the pricing market for those lands. Mr. Boles requested documentation from the Metro Partnership on the relative mix of services that the partnership provides. He also requested a reexami- nation of the qualification process and suggested that some criteria be added which take into account such things as projections for job creation and company stability, in the hope of qualifying larger companies which not only meet financial criteria, but environmental and community-support criteria as well. Mr. Rutan asked why it is important for Eugene to have a Metro Partnership. In response, Mr. Lively said that the benefit of the Metro Partnership to Eugene lies in its ability to identify and recruit economically diverse investment for Eugene and its ability to facilitate this investment by pro- viding a timely and professional response to requests for information. Mr. Boles asked why it is important to have public moneys invested in the Metro Partnership. Mr. Lively responded that it would be impossible to sustain the Metro Partnership without the investment of both publiC and private funds. He indicated that having a contract between the Metro Part- nership and the City provides a direct access into the public entity. In addition, Mr. Gleason said that having a Metro Partnership which does not involve publiC funds reduces public involvement in and control of the re- cruitment process. This can lead to a situation such as the recruitment e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 4 e agency's making promises to a company which are not supported by the City Council. Mr. Lively invited the council to attend a meeting of the Metro Partnership Board. Mr. Boles requested feedback from the Metro Partnership on the results of this discussion. III. WORK SESSION: PROPOSED SIGN CODE REVISIONS John Weber, Planning and Development Department, provided a summary of the recommended revisions to the Sign Code. He reminded the council that on May 14, 1990, the council conducted a public hearing to consider comprehensive revisions to Eugene's sign regulations. Following the hearing, the council deferred action to allow staff time to respond to testimony and council comments. After providing council direction on the items discussed in the report, staff will work with the City Attorney to amend the proposed code and bring it back for council adoption on July 25, 1990. Mr. Weber said that staff met several times with members of the billboard industry to discuss issues raised at the May 14 public hearing. Following these discussions, several revisions were made to the Sign Code. He noted that although these revisions represent changes over the Planning Commis- sion's recommendations, they remain consistent with its intent. e Mr. Weber stated that the first major change to the draft Sign Code reviewed by the council on May 14, 1990, has to do with the maximum billboard area and increases the area allowable for a billboard from 200 square feet to up to 250 square feet on certain designated streets. Another major change has to do with billboard spacing and removal. The draft sign code requires that billboards be spaced at least 350 feet apart when on the same side of the street and 150 feet apart when on opposite sides of the street. Mr. Weber noted that if spacing is the only reason that a billboard does not conform to the regulations, however, the proposed Code contains an amendment which would exempt the billboard from the IS-year removal requirement. Staff is uncer- tain how many billboards this latter change would affect. Referring to Page 3 of the staff notes regarding sign height, Ms. Ehrman asked whether a "financial hardship" could be considered "a practical diffi- culty or unnecessary hardship which may result from the location of existing structures on the site or in the vicinity" and would, therefore, be suffi- cient grounds for approving a sign variance. Mr. Weber said that it would not. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Weber said that the members of the billboard industry have agreed to the updated sign code as it now stands and would be willing to live with an ordinance regulated by these standards. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 5 / e Ms. Bascom asked about how the updated sign code would govern a situation in which a tree located in the public right-of-way was obstructing the visibili- ty of a sign. In response, Mr. Rutan said that in this event, the City would have the ultimate decision whether to trim or cut the tree, but would not be required to do so. Ms. Ehrman voiced concern that the IS-year time allotted for the removal of non-conforming signs is too liberal. She asked whether any consideration was given to shortening this time frame. Mr. Weber explained that IS years was determined by the Planning Commission to be a sufficient amount to get the maximum value out of a recently-erected sign. The commission did not discuss the possibility of making a distinction in the IS-year removal requirement between old and new signs. Ms. Ehrman expressed her opposition to the variance which allows non-conform- ing signs to be exempt from the IS-year removal requirement simply on the basis of spacing. Mr. Rutan disagreed with Ms. Ehrman, saying that this IS-year removal re- quirement for non-conforming signs represents a fair and reasonable compro- mise between the City and the billboard industry. Ms. Bascom remarked that part of the impetus behind undertaking this sign code update was to decrease the visual clutter posed by numerous signs on 6th and 7th avenues. She asked about the impact this update will have on meeting that goal. Mr. Gleason said that at the end of IS years, the impact of this e ordinance on visual clutter would be minimal. Mr. Miller reminded the council that in considering the possibility of making the sign code more restrictive, it must remain aware of the potential for property owner litigation. Mr. Bennett said that he believes that billboards are different from other types of signs necessary to advertise a business. He expressed his opposi- tion to the spacing exemption for non-conforming billboards. Mr. Rutan suggested that the council direct staff to undertake further sign code negotiations surrounding the IS-year removal period for non-conforming billboards in order to reach a compromise which will be acceptable to both the industry and the council. He noted that he believes IS years to be a fair amount of time for sign amortization. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to remove the spacing exemption for sign removal from the proposed sign code. The motion carried, 4:2; with councilors Boles, Bascom, Bennett, and Ehrman voting aye; and councilors Green, and Rutan voting nay. (Councilor Boles left the meeting at 1:00 p.m.) e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 6 --- ---- - ----- e Mr. Rutan said that because of the nature of development in the Goodpasture Island Road area in the City, the existing signage standards are appropriate for this are. He felt that businesses in this area should be allowed to remain within existing sign code standards. Mr. Rutan moved, second by Mr. Green, to create a Special Overlay District governing the existing Goodpasture Island Road auto dealerships that would for existing signs only: 1) waive their obligation to comply with the proposed minimum spacing requirements in the Sign Code update; and 2) allow them to retain existing standards for sign size. Mr. Rutan clarified that the intent of his motion is that all new signs in the proposed Special Overlay District would have to conform to the new sign code standards. Replacement signs, providing that the type and nature of the sign did not vary significantly, would be regulated under existing standards. The motion carried, 4:1; with councilors Bascom, Rutan, Green, and Bennett voting in favor; and Councilor Ehrman voting aga i nst. Ms. Ehrman said that testimony in opposition to the sign code update from property owners in the Goodpasture Island Road area disclosed dissatisfaction with the proposed update because of the substantial investment they had made in signs already. She noted that when the new standards actually go into effect, investment may no longer be a factor and said that these property e owners should be governed under the new Sign Code standards. Ms. Ehrman said that she is interested in allowing permits for portable signs. Mr. Gleason noted that enforcement for portable signs is both diffi- cult and costly. Mr. Weber said that the list of standards contained within the council packet are standards which the Planning Commission felt should be implemented should portable signs be allowed. He noted, however, that the Planning Commission recommended that portable signs not be allowed. Ms. Ehrman voiced her opposition to Standard 3 governing portable signs which allows "one portable sign per business per entrance." She indicated an interest in limiting property owners to "one portable sign per business." After lengthy discussion and with general support from the council, staff agreed to investigate possible ways of exempting the Hult Center sign, the Mac Court sign, and time and temperature signs from the prohibition on Elec- tronic Message Centers. The meeting of the Eugene City Council adjourned at 1:40 p.m. ~~y su~itte , ;Q~ ~.' . MicHeal Gleason e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 7 e City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 071190-1130 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 8